wb_check_auth

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With readOnlyHint=true, the description adds meaningful context beyond the annotation: it explicitly promises not to reveal secret values and clarifies it only reports which variables are set. The documented JSON shape also sets expectations. This is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure, though it does not mention any edge cases like partially configured environments.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with the main verb/resource first, a key safety guarantee second, and the exact return shape third. Every sentence earns its place and the format is easily parseable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only credential check with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It says what it checks, what it will not do, and exactly what JSON it returns. An agent can invoke it correctly without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies; no additional parameter detail is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether the required credentials are present in the environment.' It also clarifies the non-revealing behavior, distinguishing it from a naive credential dump. It does not explicitly name sibling check_auth tools, but the wb_ prefix and title 'WB check credentials' resolve platform ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The core use case — verifying credentials before API work — is implied but never stated explicitly. There is no guidance about when to call this versus tools like wb_set_key or wb_call_method, nor a comparison to the sibling check_auth tools for other platforms.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.